.jpeg)
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed concerns over the High Court’s directive, questioning the legal basis of ordering the takedown of critical content. The apex court has sought ANI's response by April 4.
Supreme Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the Supreme Court highlighted the implications of restricting discussions about court proceedings. Justice Oka remarked that judicial observations often invite public discourse and criticism, which courts should tolerate.
"In this Court, we say things, and somebody wants to comment upon it... this happens. Sometimes somebody says that you are sitting here with a preconceived mind or that you are not giving a hearing. People say things, and we have to tolerate it," Justice Oka stated.
The bench further emphasized that unless content amounts to contempt of court, ordering its removal solely for being critical of judicial proceedings may not be justified.
"To tell somebody to remove something because there is some criticism of what the Court has done, that may not be correct," Justice Oka observed.
Delhi High Court's Takedown Order
The controversy stems from a Delhi High Court order directing Wikipedia to remove a page titled "Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation." The High Court found certain comments on the page prima facie contemptuous, particularly allegations that a judge had threatened to shut down Wikipedia in India.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela deemed the content as interference in judicial proceedings, leading to the takedown directive.
Wikimedia's Arguments
Representing Wikimedia, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal contended that the High Court's order lacked a conclusive finding of defamation. He argued that Wikipedia does not generate content but merely hosts user-generated material, noting that the disputed information was sourced from an Indian Express article.
"It is just not possible," Sibal asserted, emphasizing that a judicial takedown order should be based on clear legal grounds.
ANI’s Position
ANI’s counsel argued that the individuals responsible for the allegedly defamatory statements were not before the court. The Supreme Court, however, reiterated the importance of media freedom, with Justice Oka noting, “Ultimately, this is the media. The question is about the freedom of the media.”
The Court permitted ANI to file a counter affidavit by the end of the month, allowing it to present the correct article for review.
Background of the Dispute
The case originates from a defamation suit filed by ANI against Wikimedia, alleging that the Wikipedia page contained defamatory content regarding ANI’s editorial policies and credibility. ANI sought Rs. 2 crore in damages and demanded the removal of the content.
The Delhi High Court earlier directed Wikipedia to disclose the subscriber details of three individuals who had edited ANI's Wikipedia page—an order that Wikimedia contested. The case progressed as follows:
- November 11, 2024 – The Delhi High Court dismissed Wikimedia’s appeal against the order requiring disclosure of the individuals’ details after both parties reached a consent resolution.
- Subsequent Ruling – The court allowed Wikipedia to serve summons on the individuals while permitting the Single Judge Bench to continue with ANI’s defamation suit.
- Wikipedia Page Removal – Following the page’s takedown, the High Court closed ANI’s contempt plea against Wikimedia.
- Latest Development – The Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court issued summons to the three individuals allegedly responsible for editing ANI’s Wikipedia page.
Legal and Media Implications
The case raises significant questions about online content regulation, media freedom, and judicial transparency. Legal experts suggest that while courts have the authority to curb defamatory content, blanket takedown orders could set a precedent affecting free speech.
With the Supreme Court now reviewing the legality of the High Court’s directive, the upcoming hearing on April 4 is expected to clarify the balance between media accountability and freedom of expression in digital spaces.
Case Details:
- Case No.: Diary No. 2483 / 2025
- Title: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited
- Next Hearing Date: April 4, 2025
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for digital platforms, online discourse, and media rights in India.
